JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories
May 17, 2013 3:41 AM Subscribe
Were JFK conspiracy theories held in the same regard as as 9/11 truthers are now?
John F Kennedy conspiracy theories are a part of popular culture, feeding books, documentaries, movies etc. Which made me think
1. Were the people who held these views thought of as kooks in the 1960's?
2. 30 years from now could there be the same thread take hold in popular culture in relation to 9/11?
In fact, it really wasn't until 9/11 that JFK conspiracies started to subside.
posted by empath at 4:33 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 4:33 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
There is a group of people who believe that we faked the moon landing and that Booth isn't the one who shot Lincoln, so yeah, expect there to be people making the argument for years to come.
I have no hard and fast data, but I think the average person was more willing to buy into Kennedy conspiracy theories because it's easy to imagine a conspiracy where a relatively small group arranges for someone to shoot Kennedy and then pin the blame on somebody else. Also, the JFK assassination had Jack Ruby, whose motivations are pretty much a head scratcher for most rational people, and so, he lends himself to the notion that he was "batting cleanup" in some sort of conspiracy.
As for 9-11, except for the "let it happen on purpose" school of conspiracy theorists, many of the conspiracy theories take issue with the official narrative of what actually happened, as opposed to merely questioning who was ultimately responsible. (See "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough, so the WTC was brought down with high explosives" or "the Pentagon was actually hit by a cruise missile since a plane couldn't come in that low, then all the plane debris were added to the site after the fact".) For these sorts of conspiracy theories to be true, the number of people who would have to be involved would be huge, which is pretty much the antithesis of a conspiracy.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:32 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
I have no hard and fast data, but I think the average person was more willing to buy into Kennedy conspiracy theories because it's easy to imagine a conspiracy where a relatively small group arranges for someone to shoot Kennedy and then pin the blame on somebody else. Also, the JFK assassination had Jack Ruby, whose motivations are pretty much a head scratcher for most rational people, and so, he lends himself to the notion that he was "batting cleanup" in some sort of conspiracy.
As for 9-11, except for the "let it happen on purpose" school of conspiracy theorists, many of the conspiracy theories take issue with the official narrative of what actually happened, as opposed to merely questioning who was ultimately responsible. (See "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough, so the WTC was brought down with high explosives" or "the Pentagon was actually hit by a cruise missile since a plane couldn't come in that low, then all the plane debris were added to the site after the fact".) For these sorts of conspiracy theories to be true, the number of people who would have to be involved would be huge, which is pretty much the antithesis of a conspiracy.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:32 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
I watched Ruby shoot Oswald on live TV after school. The JFK mystery is not on par with the 911, moon doubters in my opinion. My opinion is colored by knowing a person who was a rabid doubter. He was clearly messed up and held those beliefs for reasons that were pathological ,while there is room for reasonable people to question the JFK facts.
posted by JohnR at 5:52 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by JohnR at 5:52 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Like JohnR, I too was watching when Ruby shot Oswald; I don't think I've ever known anyone who honestly believed the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, just as I don't know anyone who honestly believes the conspiracy theories about 9-11, nor that aliens from outer space landed in Roswell, New Mexico. I DO know one person who thinks the moon landings were faked (and sending up rockets "punches holes in the atmosphere, and that's what causes bad weather"), but yeah: she's a definately a wacko.
I suspect conspiracy theories get a lot of press mainly because people who don't believe them want to stir the pot and keep things riled up. It gives them something to talk about, sneer about and feel superior about.
posted by easily confused at 6:16 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I suspect conspiracy theories get a lot of press mainly because people who don't believe them want to stir the pot and keep things riled up. It gives them something to talk about, sneer about and feel superior about.
posted by easily confused at 6:16 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually, I have heard that what fueled a lot of the growth of conspiracy theories in general was Watergate. Not in the sense that people thought Watergate and JFK's assasination were connected; rather, Watergate kind of primed the public to be more willing to believe in other conspiracies. You know - "hang on, if the government actually did conspire to do this, then what else may the government be trying to cover up?"
So maybe immediately following JFK's assassination, you may have had a couple of wild-eyed nutbars who argued it was some kind of a plot, but the rest of the public wrote them off - then after Watergate, which was for many the first time they even realized it was possible for such a far-reaching conspiracy to happen, those wild-eyed nutbars didn't look quite so nuts, and more people started going back and listening to them. Whereas, by the time of 9/11, the public had already accepted that government conspiracy was even a thing that could happen, so more people were likely to accept that this could be a possible such conspiracy.
Personally, I think they're all still nutbars, but I can see how it'd happen.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:55 AM on May 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
So maybe immediately following JFK's assassination, you may have had a couple of wild-eyed nutbars who argued it was some kind of a plot, but the rest of the public wrote them off - then after Watergate, which was for many the first time they even realized it was possible for such a far-reaching conspiracy to happen, those wild-eyed nutbars didn't look quite so nuts, and more people started going back and listening to them. Whereas, by the time of 9/11, the public had already accepted that government conspiracy was even a thing that could happen, so more people were likely to accept that this could be a possible such conspiracy.
Personally, I think they're all still nutbars, but I can see how it'd happen.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:55 AM on May 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
The term "grassy knoll" has become rather legendary as an indication of kook-dom.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:11 AM on May 17, 2013
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:11 AM on May 17, 2013
Every channel will be having a special next fall on JFK. I'm working on one now about conspiracy theories, but due to my NDA, I can't gas on about it too much. There were and are plenty of problems with the Warren report, and those who've pointed out those problems aren't all frothing wackos. If you do a brisk turn around major newspapers of that period, you'll see that a sizeable portion of the American public didn't believe Oswald acted alone. Fun fact:the Warren Commission report was banned in the USSR.
posted by Ideefixe at 7:11 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 7:11 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Jim Garrison, the subject of the Oliver Stone movie JFK, was featured on the Tonight Show in 1968, Clay Shaw having been arrested a year earlier. The trial that is the centerpiece of the movie was in 1969. So, conspiracy theorists had gained popular traction only a few years after the assassination.
Adding to the fire was the House investigation in 1976, which started life as an investigation not just of JFK, but also MLK, RFK and George Wallace.
So, they weren't viewed as out-and-out kooks at the time back then.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:12 AM on May 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Adding to the fire was the House investigation in 1976, which started life as an investigation not just of JFK, but also MLK, RFK and George Wallace.
So, they weren't viewed as out-and-out kooks at the time back then.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:12 AM on May 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Just from my memories of growing up at the time, yes, but not quite the same: People who "knew" it was the Mafia, or the Cubans, and had elaborate theories of what happened were regarded as kooks. People who thought it deserved investigation were not. And it wasn't exclusively from one end of the political spectrum. There's not that sort of middle ground when it comes to 9/11 truthers or birthers.
posted by tyllwin at 8:18 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by tyllwin at 8:18 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Coming back to this, I think what will limit any long-term attachment to 9/11 trutherism is the sheer volume of people involved and the lack of mystery about them.
JFK was assassinated by one man, who was in turn killed by one man. We can spin endlessly on their motivations because Oswald is dead, and Ruby died soon afterward, in 1967. We cannot interrogate them further and free to imagine what led them to their end.
Contrast that with RFK -- Sirhan Sirhan is still alive and has consistently said it was revenge for Israel-Palestine relations. No mystery. We can still go talk to him. He'll come up for parole again in a few years.
There's also no mystery about what happened to people like Barbara Olson. She got on a plane one day, with hundreds of other people, and never came home.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:37 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
JFK was assassinated by one man, who was in turn killed by one man. We can spin endlessly on their motivations because Oswald is dead, and Ruby died soon afterward, in 1967. We cannot interrogate them further and free to imagine what led them to their end.
Contrast that with RFK -- Sirhan Sirhan is still alive and has consistently said it was revenge for Israel-Palestine relations. No mystery. We can still go talk to him. He'll come up for parole again in a few years.
There's also no mystery about what happened to people like Barbara Olson. She got on a plane one day, with hundreds of other people, and never came home.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:37 AM on May 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Trutherism basically began on 9/12. JFK conspiracy theories became widespread in reaction to things like the magic bullet theory and the Warren Report. In 1972, Congress adopted a resolution that disagreed with the Warren report and said that a conspiracy was likely. In contrast to easily confused, I don't know any Baby Boomer who doesn't think there was something going on. So the history and development of the conspiracy theores were very different, and their fates are likely to be as well.
Data point: I think the preponderance of the evidence sides against the official version of events, which apparently makes me a nutbar.
posted by spaltavian at 10:54 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Data point: I think the preponderance of the evidence sides against the official version of events, which apparently makes me a nutbar.
posted by spaltavian at 10:54 AM on May 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
I watched Ruby shoot Oswald on live TV after school.
Probably not accurate, as Oswald was shot at around 11:30 on a Sunday morning.
JFK conspiracy theorists were certainly given quite a bit of consideration in the decade after the assassination. People like Mark Lane, Garrison, and Robert Groden (who first showed the Zapruder film publicly) got lots of attention and mainstream airtime for their theories, to the point that Congress was compelled to launch a second investigation in the 70's.
Along with them, several high profile politicians and lawmakers were public about their distrust of the Warren Commission, so it certainly wasn't just a bunch of "kooks" looking for attention.
At least to the public's perception. In actual fact this was pretty much exactly what was going on, but the public was more eager and susceptible to alternate explanations back then.
posted by ShutterBun at 7:26 PM on May 17, 2013
Probably not accurate, as Oswald was shot at around 11:30 on a Sunday morning.
JFK conspiracy theorists were certainly given quite a bit of consideration in the decade after the assassination. People like Mark Lane, Garrison, and Robert Groden (who first showed the Zapruder film publicly) got lots of attention and mainstream airtime for their theories, to the point that Congress was compelled to launch a second investigation in the 70's.
Along with them, several high profile politicians and lawmakers were public about their distrust of the Warren Commission, so it certainly wasn't just a bunch of "kooks" looking for attention.
At least to the public's perception. In actual fact this was pretty much exactly what was going on, but the public was more eager and susceptible to alternate explanations back then.
posted by ShutterBun at 7:26 PM on May 17, 2013
Growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, my dad was a JFK conspiracy believer (and still is to this day). He's never been a "general" conspiracy believer, but he read books like High Treason and had a couple of videotaped specials about the assassination. I remember it coming to a high point around the time of Oliver Stone's film.
It definitely wasn't correlated with any general kookiness; my dad's always been interested in the Civil War, the mafia and JFK. There was never any real "movement" like with the 9/11 Truthers, and it didn't bleed over into any other fringe weirdness. One of his friends was into some of that kind of thing, like Linus Pauling's megadoses of Vitamin C, and the JFK thing was not like any of that. I'm sure there were kooks involved with the JFK stuff but it felt more mainstream to me than most of the stuff that's weird in retrospect.
posted by graymouser at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2013
It definitely wasn't correlated with any general kookiness; my dad's always been interested in the Civil War, the mafia and JFK. There was never any real "movement" like with the 9/11 Truthers, and it didn't bleed over into any other fringe weirdness. One of his friends was into some of that kind of thing, like Linus Pauling's megadoses of Vitamin C, and the JFK thing was not like any of that. I'm sure there were kooks involved with the JFK stuff but it felt more mainstream to me than most of the stuff that's weird in retrospect.
posted by graymouser at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2013
Although I think that a certain type of person is attracted to believe in conspiracy theories in general, I do think that the family of JFK assassination conspiracy theories attracts/attracted a different kind of believer (or more generously "investigator", "inquirer", "researcher") to the 9/11 truthers and the birthers (or to the moon landing conspiracy theorists as third group).
The fact is that, wider conspiracy or not, there are still lots of points of intrigue, mystery, and contradiction in the Harvey-as-lone-gunman narrative. On the one hand there's Harvey himself - an ex-marine who defected to the USSR before returning to the US, swinging from communist sympathiser to anti-Castro activist, shot by Ruby before he could reveal his full agenda and motivations. There's a lot to hook conspiracies onto in his life story. And on the other hand, there's the ballistic evidence, which, if nothing else, the house select committee of 1979 claimed originated from two shooters. Add the unknowns to the general backdrop of often justified cold war paranoia, and what was later discovered about what feasible extra-governmental action could consist of in that era (e.g. MK Ultra, Watergate), and arguably you can have a mostly rational skeptism in the official lone gunman line. Now, what conspiracy you build from that point will mark out your kookiness, but that's another matter.
On the other hand, 9/11 truthers (and birthers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, and I would also add those climate change "skeptics" who arent paid shills) have to work against the overwhelming weight of evidence - rather than working from ambiguity and mystery, attempting to build a theory, they have to actively dismantle a very robust explanation, presupposing the conspiracy they are trying to prove, based on their pre-existing political prejudices.
In contrast to the truther movement, JFK conspiracy theories are a family of theories, which cover a plurality of different geopolitical explanations and political biases. JFK conspiracy theories are generally also falsifiable and modifiable (if not perhaps falsified or modified by the author in question), and don't often cast the conspiracy researcher as co-victim or central to the narrative. Yes, I think some JFK conspiracy authors have a lot invested in their personal theories, but the readers of those books don't, at least not in the same way as the average 9/11 truther entangles themselves in their beliefs. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who entertain themselves with the possibility of conspiracies like ones around the JFK assassination, who believe in those theories but without necessarily having a "faith" type of belief in them, as opposed to "faith" beliefs that can be seen in truthers, which I think is new and distinct. (And I'd definitely add birthers and climate change "skeptics" to that latter camp, but probably not moon landing conspiracy theorists, because I think people basically like that one because it's fun).
The scariest thing, I think, is not that 9/11 truthers have created a robust, all encompassing, personally-validating-through-persecution-complex, and utterly delusional worldview, it's that that sort of belief system is becoming mainstream, as the Republican party swings ever closer to the fringes of Tea Party ideology. In 30 years time, either we will have forgotten about 9/11 trutherism as an ugly footnote in history, or it will be so widespread as to be the orthodox view, but either way I don't think it will have the same life as JFK conspiracy theories have had.
posted by iivix at 2:30 AM on May 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The fact is that, wider conspiracy or not, there are still lots of points of intrigue, mystery, and contradiction in the Harvey-as-lone-gunman narrative. On the one hand there's Harvey himself - an ex-marine who defected to the USSR before returning to the US, swinging from communist sympathiser to anti-Castro activist, shot by Ruby before he could reveal his full agenda and motivations. There's a lot to hook conspiracies onto in his life story. And on the other hand, there's the ballistic evidence, which, if nothing else, the house select committee of 1979 claimed originated from two shooters. Add the unknowns to the general backdrop of often justified cold war paranoia, and what was later discovered about what feasible extra-governmental action could consist of in that era (e.g. MK Ultra, Watergate), and arguably you can have a mostly rational skeptism in the official lone gunman line. Now, what conspiracy you build from that point will mark out your kookiness, but that's another matter.
On the other hand, 9/11 truthers (and birthers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, and I would also add those climate change "skeptics" who arent paid shills) have to work against the overwhelming weight of evidence - rather than working from ambiguity and mystery, attempting to build a theory, they have to actively dismantle a very robust explanation, presupposing the conspiracy they are trying to prove, based on their pre-existing political prejudices.
In contrast to the truther movement, JFK conspiracy theories are a family of theories, which cover a plurality of different geopolitical explanations and political biases. JFK conspiracy theories are generally also falsifiable and modifiable (if not perhaps falsified or modified by the author in question), and don't often cast the conspiracy researcher as co-victim or central to the narrative. Yes, I think some JFK conspiracy authors have a lot invested in their personal theories, but the readers of those books don't, at least not in the same way as the average 9/11 truther entangles themselves in their beliefs. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who entertain themselves with the possibility of conspiracies like ones around the JFK assassination, who believe in those theories but without necessarily having a "faith" type of belief in them, as opposed to "faith" beliefs that can be seen in truthers, which I think is new and distinct. (And I'd definitely add birthers and climate change "skeptics" to that latter camp, but probably not moon landing conspiracy theorists, because I think people basically like that one because it's fun).
The scariest thing, I think, is not that 9/11 truthers have created a robust, all encompassing, personally-validating-through-persecution-complex, and utterly delusional worldview, it's that that sort of belief system is becoming mainstream, as the Republican party swings ever closer to the fringes of Tea Party ideology. In 30 years time, either we will have forgotten about 9/11 trutherism as an ugly footnote in history, or it will be so widespread as to be the orthodox view, but either way I don't think it will have the same life as JFK conspiracy theories have had.
posted by iivix at 2:30 AM on May 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Now, what conspiracy you build from that point will mark out your kookiness, but that's another matter.
That's something interesting - my dad has never been committed to a particular JFK assassination theory. He's always considered it a mystery who actually did it. I think that's an important line within people who are "JFK skeptics" - not everybody is committed to a particular theory or other, there is room for relatively rational skepticism as a position.
posted by graymouser at 4:59 AM on May 19, 2013
That's something interesting - my dad has never been committed to a particular JFK assassination theory. He's always considered it a mystery who actually did it. I think that's an important line within people who are "JFK skeptics" - not everybody is committed to a particular theory or other, there is room for relatively rational skepticism as a position.
posted by graymouser at 4:59 AM on May 19, 2013
Huh, I just realised that I referred to Lee Harvey Oswald as "Harvey" rather than "Oswald" - don't read anything into that, I think I've just been reading David Harvey too much recently.
posted by iivix at 11:50 AM on May 19, 2013
posted by iivix at 11:50 AM on May 19, 2013
I'm dumbfounded by people who think the JFK conspiracies are qualitively different from the 9/11 ones. I took a deep dive into conspiracy theories in the mid-90s, Waco, Jfk, freemasons, the illuminati and so on and they all seemed equally nutty and paranoid as the 9/11 ones, and by the 90s they all seemed to have converged into a kind of connected uber-narrative of unhinged paranoia.
The illuminatus trilogy, written in the late 60s and early 70s already parodied JFK theories, so it's not like the looniness was a late development.
posted by empath at 12:15 PM on May 19, 2013
The illuminatus trilogy, written in the late 60s and early 70s already parodied JFK theories, so it's not like the looniness was a late development.
posted by empath at 12:15 PM on May 19, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by empath at 4:31 AM on May 17, 2013